Display options
Share it on

Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2016 Nov;61(6):533-538. doi: 10.1007/s12223-016-0468-5. Epub 2016 Aug 02.

Detection of selected periodontal bacteria in preschool children affected by early childhood caries.

Folia microbiologica

Pavla Pantuckova, Michaela Bartosova, Zdenek Broukal, Martina Kukletova, Lydie Izakovicova Holla

Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Stomatology, Department of Paediatric Dentistry, St. Anne's Faculty Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
  2. RECETOX, Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
  3. School of Dental Medicine, the 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. [email protected].
  4. Department of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

PMID: 27485551 DOI: 10.1007/s12223-016-0468-5

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the detection frequency of periodontal bacteria in dental plaque in children with early childhood caries (ECC) with and without gingival inflammation. A convenience sample of 25 preschool children (mean age 3.61 years, SD 1.42) was recruited. Dental plaque was taken from periodontal areas with and without visible signs of inflammation and processed using the StomaGene® (Protean s.r.o. Czech Republic) and ParoCheck® 20 (Greiner Bio-one GmbH, Germany) detection kits. The two sample t tests between percents for differences between inflammatory and healthy sites and kappa statistics for the agreement of both systems were used. At the inflammatory sites, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were significantly more frequently detected by StomaGene® while Fusobacterium nucleatum, A. actinomycetemcomitans, Tanarella forsythia and Prevotella intermedia were significantly more frequently identified by ParoCheck® test. The agreement between the two detection systems was substantial for A. actinomycetemcomitans and F. nucleatum in the samples collected from inflamed sites and only for F. nucleatum from clinically healthy sites. Therefore, we recommend that the same system should be used when the same patient is examined repeatedly.

References

  1. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Dec;31(6):417-25 - PubMed
  2. PLoS One. 2014 Jan 29;9(1):e86708 - PubMed
  3. Indian J Dent Res. 2013 May-Jun;24(3):342-6 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58487 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;31(6):1041-50 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Mar;38(3):1196-9 - PubMed
  7. BMC Oral Health. 2009 Sep 23;9:24 - PubMed
  8. J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Sep;42(9):4141-6 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Aug;34(8):2017-9 - PubMed
  10. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1992 Feb;7(1):28-31 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013 Winter;38(2):155-60 - PubMed
  12. BMC Med Genomics. 2011 Mar 04;4:22 - PubMed
  13. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1992 Feb;7(1):57-9 - PubMed
  14. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012 Oct;10(10):717-25 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2006 Spring;30(3):251-6 - PubMed
  16. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007 May;17(3):192-9 - PubMed
  17. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1990 Feb;5(1):43-5 - PubMed
  18. Anaerobe. 2010 Jun;16(3):278-82 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Apr;49(4):1464-74 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Periodontol. 1998 Feb;25(2):134-44 - PubMed
  21. Curr Microbiol. 2013 Nov;67(5):537-42 - PubMed
  22. J Infect Public Health. 2010;3(2):76-82 - PubMed
  23. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2016 Sep;61(5):423-9 - PubMed
  24. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 - PubMed
  25. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2009 Jun;24(3):183-9 - PubMed
  26. J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Apr;46(4):1322-9 - PubMed
  27. ISME J. 2013 May;7(5):1016-25 - PubMed
  28. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1994 Oct;9(5):310-4 - PubMed
  29. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015 Feb;81(3):1047-58 - PubMed
  30. J Periodontol. 2000 Mar;71(3):403-9 - PubMed
  31. Ann Med. 2000 Mar;32(2):107-12 - PubMed
  32. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014 Apr;22(2):118-24 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types